뉴스레터

With growing interest in the East Asian Community, many point out that the first step to realizing such a vision is overcoming the conflicts engendered by the history of colonial rule and imperialist aggression a century ago. The development of joint history textbooks, along with joint history research, is proposed as a measure to overcoming historical conflicts. However, there are still ongoing controversies over the textbooks in current use. Is a joint history book like that of Europe possible for East Asia? We spoke with Dr. Falk Pingel, who took part in numerous history textbook projects around the world as the Deputy Director of the world-renowned Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research. After retiring from his post at the institute, he is currently in Seoul as a visiting scholar at the Northeast Asian History Foundation. – Editor

Falk Pingel

You may have come to Korea several times before, but you are making a special visit to Korea this August for one month. What is the purpose of your visit?

Doing research on how to deal with contentious issues in schoolbooks, I am in contact with Korean textbook authors, historians and curriculum experts since long. I currently work on deepening our understanding of the inter-relatedness of politics of commemoration, academic research and school teaching in mapping out national and international landscapes of public memory.

In the Northeast Asian textbook debate, the predominantly political approach of former decades has recently been completed by rich civil society and more academically driven activities; this applies in particular to South Korea. A considerable number of joint bi- and trilateral publications on history issues have been produced. My study sojourn in Korea is meant to enrich my knowledge of this development; to this aim I intend to interview individual participants, project teams, and representatives of institutions who participated in these activities; I also would like to study commemoration places in South Korea to get a more vivid and concrete insight into the remarkable innovations in commemoration issues on the one hand, and still remaining obstacles for reconciliation on the other.

During a prior interview, you mentioned that it is important for countries to admit their own limits in order to successfully publish a common history textbook. This remark was impressive. In the case of Germany-Poland France Common history textbook publication, what do you think was the limits of Germany's textbook?

I changed this. Only the German-French history textbook has already been published. The German-Polish book is still in the making. Fortunately, many disputed issues could be solved through the in-depth exchange of opinions between academics, pedagogues, teachers as well students, before the joint history textbook was published. In particular, I would like to refer here to the German-French textbook consultations taking place since the 1950s and organised on the German side by the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research. The German-French textbook conferences issued recommendations on how to deal with topics that were controversial or treated in different ways in the textbooks of both countries such as the terror of the French Revolution, French resistance and collaboration as well as German crimes against the civilian population during the Nazi occupation of France, the Versailles treaty.

History textbooks are conceived from one's own national point of view, and the most difficult exercise is to be open to the views of the so called Other be it the neighboring country or far away regions and cultures that seem to be alien to one's own way of living. Concerning the German-French debate on contemporary history, the French historians are more critical to the United States' concept of international politics and so-called humanitarian interference. However, in a modern textbook you can present different interpretations to the students so that students learn to compare and weight arguments, and form their own reasonable opinion.

Korea, China, and Japan have established respective committees for common history understanding. However, the achievements are insignificant. Rather, unlike you suggested, the three countries are pointing out problems in the textbooks of other countries, and this is provoking social and national controversies. What do you think about it?

I changed this. Only the German-French history textbook has already been published. The German-Polish book is still in the making. Firstly, I don't think that the results are insignificant. It is one of the shortcomings of the East Asian textbook debate that partners underestimate what they have already achieved. There are now some multilateral materials available; a number of academics, teachers and students look back to positive experiences in meeting each other and exchanging views on sensitive issues of national pride. NGOs and professional associations spread out in Korea and Japan (less in China for the time being) who support and actively work for fostering mutual understanding of each other's history. In the longer run, they provide a firm basis that cannot be overlooked by politicians who are still very hesitant, particularly in Japan, to recognize research findings and translate them into school textbook writing and curriculum development. To my mind, organizations such as the NAHF should continue to support these efforts on the level of academic research as well as teachers' and students' exchange to broaden the basis for cooperation. You have to discern the different levels of activities that influence each other. Failure on the political level does not imply that nothing has been reached.

You have been studying the textbooks of many countries for a long time, and you have participated in the common history textbook project which led to great success in Europe. Recently, there was news that Germany and Russia have also agreed to make a common history textbook. I would like to know the process. Also, could you tell us what meaning the Germany-Russia textbook has compared to that of Germany-Poland and France-Germany?

The German-French book set the example for other initiatives coming from teachers associations, scholars or regional/provincial authorities. However, it is not likely that their products will have the same wide range of dissemination like the German-French book that attracted as the first regular bi-national textbook the attention of the media. The German-Russian book which is still in the stage of planning may be used by classes which have a particular interest in German-Russian relations.

Currently, there are no common history textbooks among three or more countries in Europe. Is this possible? Also, in the case of East Asia, is the publication of a common history textbook among Korea, China, and Japan possible?

Concerning Europe, other bi-national initiatives are under way without Germany being involved, for example the plan to develop a Hungarian-Romanian textbook. We also think about concepts transgressing the national approach even more rigorously and writing history from an overall European or global perspective.

In Germany and in Europe, how much is the common history textbook used? Do schools use the common textbook instead of their own countries' history textbooks? And how often are the common textbooks used?

It is too early to give a definite answer to this question as the whole series of the three volumes of the German-French book covering history from the Middle Ages up to now has not yet been completed. The first volume dealing with contemporary history aroused a lot of public interest and had great success on the market but is less used in schools. As in both countries, teachers and schools decide which book to adopt the bi-national series has to compete with other products.

From the year 2012, Korean schools will teach East Asian history. On one side, there is controversy over the policy of making Korean history education an elective, not a mandatory. Critics argue that this policy cause schools to overlook the importance of Korean history. Is there are similar case in Europe?

The dominant approach in Europe is different. As a rule, national, European and world history are taught in an integrated way; there are no separate classes, curricula and textbooks for these subjects. We think that in the age of globalization, one's own history and geography should always be put in the wider international context.

Unlike Europe, Korea, China, Japan, and Asian countries still show tendencies to use national pride as a motive for national development. Can European common textbook case serve as an ideal precedent for Asia?

It sets a new paradigm, and exerts already some influence on other regions. However, it should not be imitated in an uncritical way but be adapted to the particular needs of the region at stake.

Our institute is currently carrying out a project of comparing and analyzing the history textbooks of Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S. Also, the institute is supporting the development of a common history textbook that was made nonofficial between Korea and Japan. Is there anything else that our institute could do to achieve common history understanding and common history textbook publication?

For the moment, do not focus too much on a common textbook meant for official classroom use. In Europe, that was the last step of a long-term development. A firm basis for a common regular textbook (in contrast to additional, complementary teaching material) is still missing in East Asia. Top priority should be attached to scholarly exchange, documenting joint research but also defining clearly those issues where no common opinion can be reached, and intensifying the debate about the theoretical concepts behind different interpretations. Accepting difference is a prerequisite for defining common ground. This task has still to be done in the East Asian history debate.